That's fucked up. Shit, even if he was associated with Hamas that's fucked up.
Sifu, When the moderates take over the US, your death will be quick and painless.
From another article:
What deportation would destroy, Qatanani said, is the bridge he built between the members of his mosque - one of the largest in the state - and political and law enforcement officials. It took years, he said, to persuade a congregation suspicious of U.S. authorities, and bitter about being profiled as terrorist sympathizers, to get involved in the larger community and with authorities.
thanks for witt for the pointer
I think you should have held out for more for witt. Maybe someone to write the post for you.
badump
Arg. This is a case where the law is worded really, really badly. On the form shivbunny had to fill out for the fiance visa (it's the general immigrant form), it said something like (all one question, check box for an answer), 'have you been arrested or convicted for any offense whatsoever? have you ever been convicted of prostitution?' One check box for both answers.
That was for the visa, and shivbunny had to check yes, because twelve years ago he got a citation for driving without insurance, then didn't pay the fine, and then got hauled into jail until he did. No conviction, no police record even, but we had to declare it on the form because he was 'arrested' for 'any offense whatsoever.'
When it came to permanent residency, it was almost the same question, but IIRC, it excluded infractions or requested only convictions. I remember in any case, we checked 'yes' on the first one (and got a chuckle out of the visa officer for being so honest about a traffic offense) and 'no' on the second.
I'm not sure the article is describing the guy's case properly, because if he had filed for permanent residency in 1999, I'm not sure what triggered the investigation in 2005 (unless that's just how long it took to adjudicate.) And I'm not sure why his wife and kids would have derivative status if he's already a permanent resident, so I'm guessing he's still here on some kind of visa, and they're derivative off of his visa, pending adjustment to permanent residency, and if he's deported, then their derivative status expires, too. (Because there's no such thing as derivative permanent resident status once obtained.)
Yeah, just looked up our form. Doesn't look good for the imam. Part 3, question 1, section b:
'...been arrested, cited, charged, indicted, fined, or imprisoned for breaking or violating any law or ordinance, excluding traffic violations?'
Emphasis mine, but it seems to include being held without charges as something that has to be declared.
(This is aside from the issue that they're only making a big deal of it because of who he is.)
If I were a lawyer, I'd be going after 'imprisoned for breaking any law'... no law breaking, then imprisonment shouldn't count.
Many Muslim leaders view the deportation effort against Qatanani as evidence that even the champions of moderation in their community cannot shake the labels of extremism and terrorism.
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of the fatherland is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of islamofascism is no virtue.
What deportation would destroy, Qatanani said, is the bridge he built between the members of his mosque - one of the largest in the state - and political and law enforcement officials. It took years, he said, to persuade a congregation suspicious of U.S. authorities, and bitter about being profiled as terrorist sympathizers, to get involved in the larger community and with authorities.
Turns out the congregation should have stayed suspicious.
He's not being punished for anything, so he has no rights. Scalia proved this with logic and precedents. Give up, Witt!